>
> I am interested in what current WriteLog users think might be
> changed in WriteLog with respect to the comparison in this review:
>
> http://www.pvrc.org/Newsletters/feb04.pdf (scroll down to page 8)
>
> The specific points I wonder if I should pursue further are:
>
> 1. The reviewer thinks that "modes" in the program are good.
> That the program should change its response to certain
> keystrokes based on whether it is in the S&P mode or the Run
> mode. It has been my opinion for a very long time that modes
> cause more problems than they solve?
I have used WL in both modes in a variety of contests and have never found
the current configuration to be a problem. By contrast having used
TR and CT the mode issue sometimes interfered with my operating style.
Fortunately WL messages can be programmed anyway you want to suit
your operating style and that should not change. I personally only
use the funtion keys and not the Insert and other special keys but
that is my style and as we have seen recently here others have different
approaches. This flexibility is one of WL's strengths.
>
> 2. zooming of the bandmap. how useful is this to you?
I've often thought that scrolling it might be useful but have never
considered zooming it. The problem with zooming I think is that call
text would have to zoom in size also... Not a good idea. Scrolling
however would require a scroll bar which would take space away from
the bandmap window. Space which is often needed on a full screen.
So if this feature were added it should be made optional.
>
> 3. The reviewer takes away points from WL because its windows
> can be docked instead of floating on the desktop. Surely I
> should not remove this feature from WL?
>
I don't understand the reviewer's problem with this. Windows can be docked
or floated as you wish. If only floating was available then you would be
removing functionality.
> 4. The review takes away points from WL because we don't
> update the software in real time during contest weekends and
> "updates come out infrequently". I have been reasonably happy
> with our beta test/release process (which routinely catches a
> number of bugs before they go out to thousands of users), but
> that process pretty much guarantees that from a request to a
> commercial release is a minimum of 4 to 6 weeks as that's how
> long it takes to get through the beta test process. Would
> users really prefer that the beta tests be publically available?
I would never want software to be updated in real time. I want to
decide when to update. And it's not a good idea to make beta tests
public. Look at all the traffic generated with the current upgrades.
That would be multiplied if betas were available to everyone.
The current number of new upgrades seems to be quite adequate.
I don't know what infrequently means. If you have updates coming
out say every week then that suggests you have big time problems
with the software. Updates should be released when necessary.
Look at Microsoft, they have reduced the number of new updates
because of client complaints that it was too often.
>
> 5. The reviewer had 3 or 4 month old information regarding
> the way we manage the country files and multiplier files, so
> his specific complaints are inaccurate, but it still raises
> the question of how that should be done. The WriteLog FULL
> distributions have copies of those files that were current
> when the distribution was created, and the UPGRADE
> distributions do NOT have the files at all. This means that
> you have to download the new files, and you get notices on
> writelog@contesting.com when they change. I don't think its a
> good idea to embed those files in the UPGRADE installs
> because I think there should be exactly one way for a user to
> get the latest files and some users don't upgrade right
> before the contest, and some users upgrade their software,
> but not necessarily to the most recent version (and so would
> get old files if the UPGRADE had them).
I agree with Wayne that upgrades should not include country files etc.
These files are updated independently of WL and should have a
separate release as they now have. Currently you can decide when
to update them or not when the report of a new release is available
and that should occur when a user decides it is necessary for the
activity they are engaged in.
>
> I invite email comments to any or all of the above, either
> direct or on the reflector. I personally value thoughtful
> answers the most (and prettymuch ignore flames and
> my-dog-is-better-than-your-dog comments) and I try to
> thoughtfully consider recommendations. However, I don't
> promise any action or even a response to any email (and I
> confess that I am guilty as charged in the review of not
> answered 100% of all email queries I get--I have no
> excuse.)
>
> Thanks for your consideration,
> Wayne, W5XD
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|